Circular firing squad department - commander in chief division

So apparently President Obama is going to propose a spending freeze starting 2011 on the $447 billion dollar part of the budget that funds nondefense discretionary programs. Brad DeLong calls it "dingbat kabuki"; Mark Thoma echoes the sentiment. One could defend the plan in a few ways:

- It's really a small amount of money, amounting to $25 billion less spending than currently planned in 2011, which will hit the economy (hopefully) at a time when the recovery is well underway.

- Some programs, like agriculture subsidies, deserve to be cut, and doing so is easier if put in the context of a spending freeze.

Well, I'm not going to dismiss those arguments out of hand. But what we really need now is not a weak-kneed concession to the anti-deficit crazies but an impassioned defense of the economic policies, including fiscal policies, that Obama pursued in the last year. Obama's policies have worked: TARP kept the financial system afloat and most of the money (outside AIG) has been repaid; the bank tax Obama proposes will recoup the rest. Helping GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. Obama can point to plausible studies that estimate a million or more jobs have been "created or saved" because of ARRA. Reducing spending now when the unemployment rate is ten percent, as the Republicans want to do, would be insane. It would cost jobs. Where would they cut? Reduce road construction? How many construction workers would be thrown out of work? Aid to states? How many teachers, police officers, firefighters? Lay it out for us, Barack!

Deficits are a problem in general. But right now, a large budget deficit is doing a great deal to stimulate recovery. The deficit needs to be reduced in the medium- to long-term, and the key to doing this is to get control of health spending. The health care reform bills that the Senate and House passed are the most substantial attempt at reining in health spending ever attempted. Obama needs to call the Republicans and blue dogs out on this: you've been professing to care about the budget deficit, but you have a piece of legislation before you that reduces the growth of Medicare by $500 billion over the next ten years and puts mechanisms in place that have a shot at reducing the growth rate of spending for decades. If you oppose this bill while at the same time denouncing the deficit, you are a hypocrite.

Obama has been accused of letting his attention wander from the needs of Americans to his "pet project" of health care reform. Explain why this isn't the case. Millions of Americans are out of work or fear for their jobs - they need access to the health care system, and the bills before Congress do this. The high cost of health care is strangling businesses, increasing costs and reducing employment; the reforms are directed at this problem. Health reform is not a diversion, it's an attempt to help Americans with one of the most basic of human needs in these very difficult times. Make the case!

I was very happy with Obama's leadership up until about a week ago. Now it seems that his response to political difficulties is being pulled right out of the traditional Democratic triangulation playbook: rather than defend what you believe, capitulate on every philosophical argument. Back away from ambitious policies that might help people, substitute for these policies a watered-down version of what a Republican administration would offer. Offer targeted programs for the "middle class" that poll well but make no real impact (direct deposit for retirement accounts? are you kidding me?). Then watch Republicans roll over you in the midterm elections.